Manchester City’s chief commercial partner, Etihad Airways, has announced that it is weighing the possibility of initiating legal proceedings against the Premier League in response to the recent disciplinary findings. The independent commission that examined the club’s financial practices concluded that Manchester City had breached Premier League financial regulations on every count, a verdict that has sparked a fierce reaction from the airline and the club alike. According to the commission’s report, between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons the club allegedly entered into a series of fabricated agreements with a number of its commercial affiliates. These contracts were described as part of a "disguised funding scheme" designed to artificially boost the club’s reported revenue by roughly £830 million.
The commission characterised the arrangements as "sham" deals, suggesting they were not genuine commercial contracts but rather mechanisms to inflate sponsorship income. Manchester City has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Club chief executive Ferran Soriano dismissed the findings as a "Premier League conspiracy theory" in a video addressed to players and staff, insisting that the club has acted within the rules. In parallel, Etihad Airways – which has been the club’s primary sponsor since 2009 – issued a strongly worded statement rejecting any implication that the airline was involved in improper commercial activity. Etihad’s statement made it clear that the airline was not consulted during the commission’s investigation and was never given an opportunity to present relevant information.
The carrier argued that the Premier League failed to engage with it, thereby denying Etihad a chance to defend its reputation. As a result, the airline is now seeking legal counsel to explore options for protecting its interests and to challenge what it describes as "damaging implications" arising from the published judgment, even though Etihad’s name does not appear in the redacted decision. The airline’s press release highlighted several key points: * Etihad categorically rejects any finding, conclusion, or implication suggesting it participated in improper commercial arrangements.
* The Premier League’s public communication of the commission’s findings, coupled with selective leaks, has created reputational damage for Etihad despite its absence from the official report. * The Premier League never approached Etihad for comment or to allow the airline to provide evidence, undermining the fairness of the process. * Etihad remains proud of its long‑standing partnership with Manchester City, emphasizing that the Etihad name is prominently displayed on the club’s stadium and that the relationship connects the airline with millions of fans worldwide.
* The airline will pursue legal advice to determine the appropriate recourse to safeguard its brand and commercial interests. The situation has prompted a broader reaction from other sponsors linked to Manchester City.
While some partners, such as Lucozade, Kellogg’s and Revolut, have opted not to comment until the investigation concludes, others like Majestic Wines have declined to state whether they will maintain their commercial ties with the club. Sky Sports News reported that it is still awaiting responses from a range of additional sponsors, including Sure, Durex, EA Sports, CP Company, Britvic, SilentNight, OKX, Gaucho and Champneys.
Etihad’s legal considerations come against a backdrop of significant financial stakes. In 2011, the airline signed a ten‑year sponsorship agreement worth £400 million, a deal that has since been extended. The partnership has been a cornerstone of both the club’s branding strategy and Etihad’s global marketing efforts, with the airline’s name prominently featured on the club’s home ground, the Etihad Stadium.
The potential litigation could therefore have far‑reaching implications for both parties, affecting everything from future sponsorship negotiations to the broader perception of financial governance within English football. Commentary from Sky Sports’ chief correspondent Kaveh Solhekol underscored the gravity of the development.
He noted that the commission’s judgment accused City’s owners of inflating sponsorship income through “sham” deals, a claim that Etihad vehemently disputes. Solhekol highlighted that Etihad, valued at around £4 billion, is one of the world’s largest airlines, and its willingness to pursue legal action signals a serious escalation in the dispute. The commission also expressed regret over the length of time it took to reach a decision, with hearings conducted between September and December 2024.
This delay has been cited by both the club and its sponsors as a factor that compounds the uncertainty surrounding the case. Manchester City issued its own response, describing the commission’s opinion as “disappointing and surprising.” The club asserted that it possesses a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence supporting its position and pledged to be “relentless and, where necessary, proactive” in pursuing all appropriate regulatory and legal avenues.
The statement emphasized that the club had respected due process for eight years, trusting the Premier League to act as an independent and impartial regulator. However, it also warned that further commentary would be limited until all proceedings are concluded.
Both Etihad and Manchester City have mistakenly referred to the investigative body as a "Premier League commission" in their statements, when in fact it is an independent commission appointed to examine the alleged breaches. This mischaracterisation has added another layer of confusion to an already complex narrative. The unfolding saga raises broader questions about the transparency and fairness of financial oversight in elite football.
If Etihad proceeds with legal action, it could set a precedent for how sponsors respond to regulatory findings that indirectly affect them. Moreover, the case may prompt the Premier League and other governing bodies to reassess their communication strategies with third‑party stakeholders to avoid unintended reputational damage.
In summary, Etihad Airways is actively exploring legal options after the independent commission’s findings implicated Manchester City in a substantial financial misconduct scheme. While the airline was not named in the official decision, it claims the public disclosure has harmed its reputation and seeks to protect its interests through the courts.
The club, backed by several of its sponsors, continues to deny any violations and plans to appeal the decision on grounds of legal and factual errors. The dispute remains unresolved, and its outcome could have lasting implications for sponsorship agreements, regulatory processes, and the financial integrity of the Premier League.